I voted yes but only regarding a guilty verdict of a capital offense where the victim(s) family would have the opportunity to decide on life imprisonment or the death penalty.

As far as lessor crimes, there are guide lines in place for punishments that, although at times lax, seem to be exceptable ,generally, to most people involved.

For example, I don't think that allowing a distraught husband and his wife,a rape vicitm to sentence the guilty party to casturation and life imprisonment would really serve justice (even though that is what I would want if it was my wife)

For example, I don't think that allowing a distraught husband of a rape vicitm to sentence the guilty party to casturation and life imprisonment would really serve justice (even though that is what I would want if it was my wife)

Gets the monster off the streets, for life, and even if he makes appeal, he's got no fun bags.

I had to come down on the no side. I think that victims and their families should be able to speak up on what they would like sentencing to be to the courts, but I don't think they should have an actual say in the sentencing.
There is that whole eighth amendment thing, and I think it likely that a lot of victims might step over the line there. And we already have a lot of law stuff about sentencing.

There have been many cases where for example, a person abused and killed a mother and father's children. Sometimes these criminals are released back on the street and controversy follows. But the court states that this person is ready to be released back in society.
While the family can only say that they don't feel justice because they are not ready yet.
So on which side is a best to error?
Should the family still have a say in this or just be dismissed because the law is what it is and they just have to deal with it ?

crime victims and their families, if the crime victims are dead, can make victim impact statements in court, which i think is a big help to them if they choose to make one. they are allowed to say how badly their lives are affected by the guilty defendant's actions against them.

It's tempting to give some victims, of egregiously heinous crimes, carte blanche. Such input might enter the territory of cruel and unusual, though. What if there was a list of constitutional, just punishments from which they could choose that would benefit them? They would receive appropriate, fair compensation within legal guidelines that were drawn up by the court before the perpetrator even thought about their crime.

Consider this from those victims' and their closed ones' point of view who dont want to have anything at all to do with the perpetrator. Asking them any more than what's necessary, and this isn't necessary, wont do them any good. Asking this also feeds the idea and emotions related to vengeance, which also doesn't do any good to anyone. If you want to take vengeange, risk sentence and commit a crime or hire someone to commit a crime or a legal yet hurting act towards the perpetrator. Or we could use a law that allowed pre-agreed duels to death, if both parties agreed.

People just dont do crimes without some sort of previous continuum of bad experiences and feelings. You should focus more on making the world a better place from those aspects and less on instigating people for that stuff.

If you feel the need to argue with others, you dont get free will.
Be what you are. It's up to you.
Leaving everything behind, what are you left with? That which is always inside you. It'll always guide you, if you listen.Nature itself has power no technology in hundred years will replicate. Power to heal you from the inside out. It is holy.